Why isn't DNA and Human Consciousness Enough For Some Christians?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As it is, NR has no comment to the claim that evolution led to common sense changes in many previous literal interpretations of the bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agreed some time ago to the possibility of theistic evolution. Augustine in the 4th century, you will notice long before Darwin, said the days of Genesis are not literal 24 hour periods - and he wasn't trying to please you or Dawkins.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must've missed that, but I think it's great you agreed. And also try to understand that Darwin is not by any means my God. The point is, that whether it's the 4th century, or the 21st, Augustine, or Darwin, it doesn't matter who or when advancing notions or theories come to light. Only that they do. And will continue to do so as we learnn more about our universe.

[Lestat]

Well, you have to admit this is a very difficult subject to debate. And I mean no offense by this, but especially when dealing with people so accustomed to circular thinking (i.e. they see nothing wrong with it).

So it becomes a matter of finding different ways to say the same thing and steer your point across. I'm not familiar with any other debates on this subject other than 2p2, but I think David has been pretty creative in trying to get people to think logically. Maybe similar analogies have been used before, but I haven't seen them.

And I'm not trying to blow smoke here. I'm the first to speak up when I think DS crosses the line or is too full of himself with all that "intelligence is everything" talk.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you, as you appear to be, making the case, that Dawkins is making a logical error, that negatives can be disproven, or just including an unknown presumption about the necessity of god?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you can prove that God is unnecessary you have proved He doesn't exist because theologians have almost uniformly defined God as a necessary being - though the Bible doesn't state it that way it's a valid conclusion that it is saying the same thing about God.

Dawkins may not say the words "Science has proved that God doesn't exist. But he says things like:

[ QUOTE ]

Dawkins, perhaps best known for his much-cited comment that evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist,"


[/ QUOTE ]

That's tantamount to saying that science has proved that God isn't necessary, otherwise the quote makes no sense.

I believe he has also said specifically that God isn't necessary to explain the universe, biology, etc.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what you're talking about.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what I'm talking about.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Your response contained no rebuttal to this.


[/ QUOTE ]


Yes it did. But if you didn't get it, see my response to DougShrapnel.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> If you can prove that God is unnecessary you have proved He doesn't exist </font>

Not true. Because for one thing....

<font color="blue">theologians have almost uniformly defined God as a necessary being - </font>

Theologians can certainly be wrong (even though they can't in your mind).

Surely you know that proving something is unnecessary does not prove its non-existence. A blue shirt is not necessary for me to be able to type this. Yet, you can't prove one way or the other, whether I'm wearing one or not. I think we've been down this road before...

You ask me to prove that an apple does not fall, but for the grace of God. Do you REALLY expect me to be able to prove this any more than I can expect you to prove that I'm not wearing a blue shirt?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what you're talking about.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what I'm talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes we do, you're attributing claimsto people who never made them and then attempting to justify your actions with loads of assertions that that person doesn't agree with.

You're saying that if they agreed with you about the rest then some of what they claimed would be equivalent to the claim that science can prove god doesn't exist. As they have explicitey denied that science can disprove godthey clearly don't agree with the rest of your stuff (no big suprise).

Its still up to you to acknowledge that Dawkins has made clear that in his view science cannot disprove the existence of god. You may think he is mistaken (or even dishonest) in this view but that's a different matter.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Surely you know that proving something is unnecessary does not prove its non-existence.


[/ QUOTE ]

But it does in the case of God because it's part of how He is defined. A being with a lot of power but who isn't necessary isn't God. Also, if you can prove that something happened outside the will or power of God, you also prove He doesn't exist, because omnipotence and omniscience are also part of God's definition, His attributes.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Its still up to you to acknowledge that Dawkins has made clear that in his view science cannot disprove the existence of god


[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't make that clear. It might be unintentional on his part because of his ignorance of theology.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its still up to you to acknowledge that Dawkins has made clear that in his view science cannot disprove the existence of god


[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't make that clear. It might be unintentional on his part because of his ignorance of theology.

[/ QUOTE ]
He makes it absolutely clear that in his view its impossible to prove that god doesn't exist. I even gave you the reference.

There were no weasal words on his part its a plain statement of his view. If you do a quick google you can see he has made similar very clear statements on several occasions.

So, go on, step up to the mark and admit you were wrong.

chez